Book of Mormon and DNA evidence

[hambergler]

Hello all,

This is my first post here after hearing about it on RFM so go easy on me.

I am a somewhat young exmo that left the church a couple of years ago due to philisophical reasons (rather than evidence based or truth claim issues which I discovered shortly after leaving), and recently have gotten back in touch with my old Seminary teacher that is a dear friend. Recently we have been doing video calls and discussing the apologetics essays the church has put out on various topics and he wants me to push back on him while we read through the essays. I can't be too specific on why we are doing so, but suffice it to say that this isn't his attempt to convert me

We recently started reading the DNA evidence in the Book of Mormon essay, and I found a wonderful blogpost detailing the issues with the essay, and I've been using it as reference for our discussion:
http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/201 ... ising.html

Since Simon Southerton wrote this post, it seems as though the church has backed off some of the essay's previous claims since they were very pretty outlandish, but this is still a really good response to the issues that are still in the essay.

When I first read the essay back in 2016, it definitely was a shelf item because all my life I had assumed what I'll call the "Lehites" (all descendants of Lehi) were the only ones on the continent (outside the Jaredites of course), and therefore were the ancestors of the Book of Mormon, and any Asiatic DNA would disprove this theory. This however wasn't that big of a shelf item for me.

When I voiced the fact that all my life I had understood that these were the only ancestors, I got shock from my old Seminary teacher as he said that "the textual evidence doesn't point there" and that the better theory is that only a few Lehites intermingled with the native population but instead spread their ideas and since there were so few Lehites compared to the native population, the Church's argument about "bottlenecking" would hold since we have been unable to find any bones that are Native American mixed with Middle Eastern. As my old teacher puts it "because bones disintegrate quickly unless certain preservation conditions were met, and since there were so few hybrid Lehite/Native Americans, it seems like it would be a statistical anomaly to find any sort of Lehite/Native American DNA from bones". It also seems like FAIR with its TITS videos is advancing this sort of theory as well and it has caught me quite off guard.

I have a couple of questions here:

1. I understand that apologists will continue to change the theory solely to back up the conclusion and I'm not interested in forever rebutting his points he brings up, and then once it is exhausted him telling me "I will just take it on faith". However, since I'm more interested in philosophy what I'm more interested in is what this sort of theory actually ties the apologist to. Any time an apologist puts forth a narrative, it carries theological and natural implications of their theory. There are also philosophical implications that come with the rejection of the fundamentalist position. (Here I mean not affirming the theory, rather, rejecting the fundamentalist position)

To me this theory seems like a bit of a cop out, inconsistent with everything I was taught growing up, and seems a bit off not only scientifically but also theologically. I can't quite put my finger on the issue as I'm not well studied on the evidence based issues of the Church and am a computer scientist, not a biologist.

2. The other question is a biology/anthropological question. If we do go with this theory the Church puts forth, is it really likely that we would find no evidence (since there were "so few intermarriages"), and bottlenecking that they describe, or would evidence still be abundant? Is "bone disintegration" really that big of a problem such that we will never find evidence for the Book of Mormon? It seems like this is a small issue in a larger narrative that is unwilling to be addressed and I'm wondering if others have input here. Are there good genetics, theological, anthropological, or even cultural reasons why this sort of bottlenecking theory wouldn't hold?

[tapirrider]

Did he give you any passages from the Book of Mormon when he said "the textual evidence doesn't point there"?

[Res Ipsa]

Welcome hamburgler. Part of the answer to your questions is that nothing ever ties apologists to anything. That's part of the strategy.

The other is that Simon visits from time to time, and I know he'll be happy to give you the details of the genetics. But my recollection is the science does not back up the claim that the DNA evidence would have just disappeared. And the Book of Mormon text does not point toward this apologetic effort.

[hambergler]

Did he give you any passages from the Book of Mormon when he said "the textual evidence doesn't point there"?

So he didn't give me specific textual evidence, but he kept citing Book of Mormon scholars from the Journal of Book of Mormon studies or maybe some sort of FAIR aarticle (I wish I could remember their names) about how there is textual evidence that they weren't the only people in the Americas, or were attempting to create geographic models and maps to figure out where the Book of Mormon took place to explain this away.

I do however know that we had a discussion about the verses that Southerton uses in his essay such as:

2 Nephi 1:8-9 "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever."

And although I see how Southerton is trying to use this to further argument, but it also seems like the apologist proposing this "multiple peoples" model can use it the same way. It keeps using this reference to "the land" which is ambiguous, it could be a small vally, country, continent, or however you want to twist it.

The same is can be said about the quote from the essay itself from President Ivin:

"We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two people and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent. A thousand years had elapsed from the time the Book of Mormon closed until the discovery of America, and we know that other people came to America during that period."

This again is ambiguous and interpratable with this "multiple peoples" model. If the apologist wants to believe that there was a migration of the Siberian people before any of the other people in the Book of Mormon, they are open to do so even with this teaching.

The apologist seems really good at burden shifting here which is why I think I'm struggling. If I say "I was always under the impression and taught that the Native Americans descended from Lehi in the Middle East, and that there was an abundance of people and massive civilizations" I get back: "well that's nice you were taught that, but there is no specific textual evidence you can point to to prove that this is the dominant view of the church. My theory is just as good because I can prove it is plausible with wack ass population genetic with strange conditions". I only read the Book of Mormon twice, and was much more interested in theology/philosophy than knowing the exact position of the Book of Mormon on this, or the Church in general, but at this point I'm just feeling like I'm getting gaslighted (gaslit?) because I could've sworn it was the position of the Church that Lehi's camp created the entire Native American population. Am I insane?

[dastardly stem]

What a fun activity, Hambergler. This kind of discussion doesn't happen much in real life in my experience. Sounds fun.

He seems to rely on the same types of things people have been going to for years--"there must have been others". I don't know how possible or plausible it'd be if a population showed up amongst others and then centuries later the DNA of that intrusive population disappeared. If it has happened we wouldn't know because the DNA evidence disappeared. Its theoretical and an attempt to suggest it is possible.

I'm comfortable saying...fine possibilities abound, if that how you want to see it. The burden is upon those making the claim. If you want to suggest there were ancient Israelites who showed up in the Americas 2600 years ago, then the claim that its theoretically possible a population showed up and all evidence of this group washed away then you haven't met the burden. You have simply punted and there remains no evidence for the claim...the burden is not met. Just remind him of the burden that is never met and let him wiggle around in the unlikely space of "well it's possible something nutty happened".

[tapirrider]

Am I insane?

No, of course not. Have you read this?

Reinventing Lamanite Identity by Brent Lee Metcalfe
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404030 ... 020-25.pdf

[Moksha]

Hambergler, welcome to Mormon Discussions.

[Dr Exiled]

Welcome! You will find and perhaps you already have, that since there isn't any good evidence for Mormon truth claims, they will always end up resting on faith and possibilities. Further, the apologists don't care who gets run over by their possibility bus. Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's graves have huge bus tire marks all over them. Any support for the racist priesthood ban by the first presidency was merely men speaking/speculating. Hell, I wouldn't put it past the apologists if they treated Jesus much like he was treated in the famous book The Brothers Karamozov. Jesus would interfere in the current apologetic and destroy the whole enterprise with his goody two shoes adherence to truth and logic. He would need to be stopped by Midgley and his army of spies.

[hambergler]

Am I insane?

No, of course not. Have you read this?

Reinventing Lamanite Identity by Brent Lee Metcalfe
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404030 ... 020-25.pdf

I have not, this article is amazing! Thank you for sharing.

I find that apologetic arguments on top of arguments tend to shift the narratives so well that it is hard to get a good history of what the Church's claims are sometimes. I understand it is on purpose, but I enjoy reading histories of how the arguments have changed like this so that I have a clearer picture.

[hambergler]

What a fun activity, Hambergler. This kind of discussion doesn't happen much in real life in my experience. Sounds fun.

He seems to rely on the same types of things people have been going to for years--"there must have been others". I don't know how possible or plausible it'd be if a population showed up amongst others and then centuries later the DNA of that intrusive population disappeared. If it has happened we wouldn't know because the DNA evidence disappeared. Its theoretical and an attempt to suggest it is possible.

I'm comfortable saying...fine possibilities abound, if that how you want to see it. The burden is upon those making the claim. If you want to suggest there were ancient Israelites who showed up in the Americas 2600 years ago, then the claim that its theoretically possible a population showed up and all evidence of this group washed away then you haven't met the burden. You have simply punted and there remains no evidence for the claim...the burden is not met. Just remind him of the burden that is never met and let him wiggle around in the unlikely space of "well it's possible something nutty happened".

This has been quite the fun discussion and it has been definitely interesting to have it. I'm a staunch Atheist who really likes Camus and he is a very staunch TBM who likes Kierkagaard and Mark Wrathall (who also happens to be LDS) and the arguments we have can get interesting very fast.

To address your comment burden of proof, I do think that the burden of proof shifting is definitely annoying and sometimes in conversation it is hard to catch the shifting whereas in writing it is really easy.

My current strategy has been the use of Occam's Razor even if the burden gets shifted. For example, when he presents this theory to me my response has been, "I'll grant you whatever theory you want, but lets take a look at the difference between what the scientific consensus is on the topic, and compare it with your theory." Typically the apologist really wants to show that they have a plausible explanation that fits scholarly consensus, but my point typically is that you have to posit a lot of extra random stuff just to make it fit with consensus, when consensus has already been reached on the topic and you are just making things more complicated.

In other words, if you postulate something is nearly untraceable and won't ever be traceable, what is the difference between your theory and them never having existed at all? The answer is complicating everything to no end, and less assumptions are better by Occam's Razor